John A. Broussard

Talk about willful misrepresentation!

Where in the world did I advance the possible existence of the IPU?

When I last checked google on the Invisible Pink Unicorn, there were over 30,000 hits.

In spite of that, I stick to my statement, "I can say with supreme confidence that I do not believe in its existence."

How that could possibly be "advancing the possible existence of same" is simply incredible!!!!

Selsaral

The idea of an invisible man in the sky who thinks you should chop some skin off your penis and thinks woman should be humble is obviously a concoction (though I wouldn't argue it was willful).

Now, I don't expect you to agree with me (even though many people do, including many people of other religions), but it's damn easy to claim 'it's obvious so-and-so's religion is manmade'.

Merely claiming this doesn't appear to have any pursuasive value whatsoever.

Classic argument from popularity. The number of people who believe something has no indication on the validity of their beliefs.

Yep and the fact that astrologers, scientologists, raelians, bigfootists, alien abductees, crystal healers etc all claim the exact same stuff and all have the exact same evidence for their claims puts profound fundamental doubt upon them.

Because people are normally completely rational, logical creatures who only believe what is true? Because historically people have had the majority of their beliefs be true?

No, the exact opposite is true. From thinking that diseases are curses from the gods, to thinking that mental illness is God's curse, to thinking that the Earth is the center of the universe, to thinking that menstrual blood has powerful and dangerous magical properties, to thinking that you can fortell the future with a termite oracle, people have been wrong. We're superstitious, ignorant, emotional creatures and are NOT reliable witnesses when it comes to anything, much less demons, ghosts, gods, spirits, etc.

And to your argument about the IPU being unable to be pink and invisible at the same time, is this sort of like people pointing out that God can't be one person and three at the same time, and having every christian ignore you or make up some insane apologetics?

Well yeah, your baby fish is blind. Of course it can't see the ocean. If it weren't blind, it could see all the sediment floating around and see that something suspended it, it could swim to the top and see where the air is, it could read a textbook about chemistry, etc.

In short, it could perform experiments.

Which is where your analogy fails, because the experiments that attempt to detect the supernatural have ALWAYS failed.

danrael

Simply incredible, but true. Take another close look at what is implicit in what you are saying.

In spite of the fact that you are saying you do not believe in its existence, in your heart of hearts, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he truly does exist and that he loves you more than you know.

danrael

But of course they've failed! The supernatural world is outside the realm and beyond the reach of empirical methods of investigation.

You are missing the point about baby fish: it is because he has always been in the sea that he is not aware of it being all around him. He was born into it and raised in it. In the same way, man is born into the ordinary world but does not understand that it is the ordinary that is the supernatural itself.

If, as you say, baby fish is blind, then so are you, as you fail to see the supernatural world all around you. Have you read a textbook on the supernatural world lately, or conducted experiments to validate its existence, as you suggest baby fish should do?

As for Invisible Pink Unicorns, can you see the color pink though it be invisible to you?

When you adopt an attitude of neither believing nor not-believing, you leave your mind open for the true nature of reality to make itself known to you: taking a position one way or the other closes the mind's door. The sceptic and the believer are simply two halves of the same coin.

John A. Broussard

You gotta be kidding.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn loves me more than I know?

John A. Broussard

Are you claiming here that we can know something for sure without using empirical methods of investigation?

Assuming that you are claiming that, please cite examples of what you know without using empirical methods of investigation, and how you know it.

I look forward to your response.

newtype_alpha

When you say "he," you are talking about The Flying Spaghetti Monster, right?:angel:

newtype_alpha

The thing is, the baby fish would be within his rights to say "The sea doesn't exist. I say this because all my friends tell me that the sea is a large green mass of fungal material that permeats everything around us, even me, at all times, but cannot be seen or felt by anyone except people who really really believe it's there, and which will surely strangle and eat me if I don't believe in it by next tuesday."

Either way, there's nothing supernatural about the sea. The fish depends on the sea and its natural properties for survival. The fish--being natural--contributes things to the sea as he lives, breathes, eats, and dies. He can experience the sea if he knows what it is, he can feel it, he can be aware of it, and even if he fails for some reason that it exists, he will still depend on it for his survival. If this analogy is correct, then I would be perfectly willing to conclude that there is nothing supernatural about god.

Something that is supernatural cannot, by definition, interact with the natural. The fish, on the other hand, can interact with the sea, just by sitting still and feeling the currents on his little scales. If god is comparable to the sea in such a way that humans at all times are in touch with god--which may or may not be true--then proving this would simultaneously prove the existence of God and disprove the truth of most of man's religions.

We have faith that she is pink, and we know she is invisible because we can't see her. The Pink Unicorn is supernatural, so her nature is beyond human understanding--hence the need for faith.

Hardly a fair comparison. The skeptic is looking to disprove what someone else believes, the believer just... well, believes. The opposite coin face of a skeptic is an apologist, who actually looks to disprove the criticisms of skeptics for his own vindication. Both are indeed two sides of the same coin, since both are reflections of impeccable hubris.

Jobar

But see, what you are saying here is "The natural is supernatural." And that is just nonsense. It tells us nothing about natural or supernatural.

Words (and numbers), despite their known limitations, are the only means we have to communicate knowledge more subtle than our emotions (we can use expressions and body language to communicate those, but any animal can do that, at least to some extent.)

For the term 'supernatural' to have any meaning at all, we have to be able to distinguish it from the natural. And how are we to do that? All our means of sensing, all our means of knowing, are natural phenomena.

The concept of the supernatural is empty. It can't help us know anything; it can't help us do anything. So why bother with it? Danrael, can you tell me what you personally get from thinking there is something beyond the natural?

Jobar

Beware, for the horrid pits of the dark and drear Spikey Place yawn open at your feet! Repent, and cast yourself upon the mercy of She Whose Hooves Are Never Shod!

Jobar, First Inquisitor of the Invisible Pink Inquisition, and certified Prophet of the IPU (PBUHHH)